Alternative Feedstuffs and Changing Coproducts for Cowherd

The combination of decreasing acres available for crop production, an increasing world population, increased utilization of grain for fuel and increased input costs (fuel, transportation, and fertilizer) have resulted in limited feed supplies and higher feed costs. Additionally, the recent drought in much of the United States has further reduced the available feed supply driving feed costs dramatically higher. Historically, feed costs have represented 50D70% of the cost of production for beef enterprises. This past year, the high prices for corn and hay have driven that percentage over 80% for many operations. CowDcalf producers have been forced to investigate alternative feedstuffs to lower the cost of production. Ideally, the cowherd is grazing a significant portion of the year. Grazing days varies drastically throughout different regions of the United States and is greatly impacted by year to year differences in weather patterns. Drought limits summer grazing. Snow and ice can limit winter grazing. Harvested and stored feeds represent the majority of feed costs for cowDcalf producers. With hay supplies low and hay costs high, producers need to consider alternative feeds for winter feeding and for emergency drought relief

National Program for Genetic Improvement of Feed Efficiency in Beef Cattle

Our goal is to sustainably reduce feed resources required to produce beef via the rapid development and deployment of novel nutritional, genomic and genetic improvement technologies. We will strengthen the international competitiveness of US agriculture and enable increased food production by increasing the animal protein produced without additional feed inputs and with a reduced greenhouse gas footprint

Alternative Feedstuffs and Changing Coproducts for Cowherd

The combination of decreasing acres available for crop production, an increasing world population, increased utilization of grain for fuel and increased input costs (fuel, transportation, and fertilizer) have resulted in limited feed supplies and higher feed costs. Additionally, the recent drought in much of the United States has further reduced the available feed supply driving feed costs dramatically higher. Historically, feed costs have represented 50D70% of the cost of production for beef enterprises. This past year, the high prices for corn and hay have driven that percentage over 80% for many operations. CowDcalf producers have been forced to investigate alternative feedstuffs to lower the cost of production. Ideally, the cowherd is grazing a significant portion of the year. Grazing days varies drastically throughout different regions of the United States and is greatly impacted by year to year differences in weather patterns. Drought limits summer grazing. Snow and ice can limit winter grazing. Harvested and stored feeds represent the majority of feed costs for cowDcalf producers. With hay supplies low and hay costs high, producers need to consider alternative feeds for winter feeding and for emergency drought relief.</p

Beef Cattle Feed Efficiency

Feed efficiency is currently a very popular topic among cattle producers and researchers. However, this is not a new concept. Researchers have been studying feed efficiency for 40 years. However, changing dynamics in agriculture have brought more feed efficiency research to the forefront. The combination of decreasing acres available for crop production, an increasing world population, increased utilization of grain for fuel, increased input costs (fuel, transportation, and fertilizer) and an increase in feed costs (grain and forage) are some of the key factors that highlight the changing dynamics of agriculture. Additionally, the recent drought in much of the United States has further reduced the available feed supply driving feed costs dramatically higher. Historically, feed costs have represented 50-70% of the cost of production for beef enterprises. As corn prices approached and exceeded $7 per bushel, feed costs were nearly 80$1.2 billion.</p

Bioinformatics Analysis of Transcriptome Dynamics During Growth in Angus Cattle Longissimus Muscle

Transcriptome dynamics in the longissimus muscle (LM) of young Angus cattle were evaluated at 0, 60, 120, and 220 days from early-weaning. Bioinformatic analysis was performed using the dynamic impact approach (DIA) by means of Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) and Database for Annotation, Visualization and Integrated Discovery (DAVID) databases. Between 0 to 120 days (growing phase) most of the highly-impacted pathways (eg, ascorbate and aldarate metabolism, drug metabolism, cytochrome P450 and Retinol metabolism) were inhibited. The phase between 120 to 220 days (finishing phase) was characterized by the most striking differences with 3,784 differentially expressed genes (DEGs). Analysis of those DEGs revealed that the most impacted KEGG canonical pathway was glycosylphosphatidylinositol (GPI)-anchor biosynthesis, which was inhibited. Furthermore, inhibition of calpastatin and activation of tyrosine aminotransferase ubiquitination at 220 days promotes proteasomal degradation, while the concurrent activation of ribosomal proteins promotes protein synthesis. Therefore, the balance of these processes likely results in a steady-state of protein turnover during the finishing phase. Results underscore the importance of transcriptome dynamics in LM during growth

QTLs associated with dry matter intake, metabolic mid-test weight, growth and feed efficiency have little overlap across 4 beef cattle studies

Background: The identification of genetic markers associated with complex traits that are expensive to record such as feed intake or feed efficiency would allow these traits to be included in selection programs. To identify large-effect QTL, we performed a series of genome-wide association studies and functional analyses using 50 K and 770 K SNP genotypes scored in 5,133 animals from 4 independent beef cattle populations (Cycle VII, Angus, Hereford and Simmental × Angus) with phenotypes for average daily gain, dry matter intake, metabolic mid-test body weight and residual feed intake. Results: A total of 5, 6, 11 and 10 significant QTL (defined as 1-Mb genome windows with Bonferroni-corrected P-value Conclusions: This GWAS study, which is the largest performed for feed efficiency and its component traits in beef cattle to date, identified several large-effect QTL that cumulatively explained a significant percentage of additive genetic variance within each population. Differences in the QTL identified among the different populations may be due to differences in power to detect QTL, environmental variation, or differences in the genetic architecture of trait variation among breeds. These results enhance our understanding of the biology of growth, feed intake and utilisation in beef cattle